Local Rule Adopted in Monroe County Regarding Submission of Exhibits at Hearings and Trials (Effective Today, July 1, 2025)

Here is a LINK to the new Monroe County Local Rule of Administration 5103, entitled “Custody of Exhibits. Special Provisions,” which goes into effect today, July 1, 2025.

This rule requires lawyers to put the exhibits that they intend to introduce during their hearing or trial on a USB flash drive.

The attorney presenting the exhibits will then either display the exhibit up on a screen in the courtroom, or provide paper copies of exhibits as duplicates of what is on the flash drive.

In any event, under the rule, the flash drive will be the exhibit that is introduced.

Under the rule, the presiding judge may waive the flash drive submission requirement for good cause shown.

It is noted that the rule has technical requirements for the maximum size of each file on the drive, that being 50 MB.

The rule also requires lawyers to save each exhibit as a separate file on the flash drive.

If an exhibit exceeds the 50 MB limit, it has to be split up.

The rule also requires that the flash drive have a separate file for an index of exhibits.

The rule otherwise specifies what audio, video, documents and photograph files must be used.

It has been reported that the rationale for the rule is that, on appeal, the record before the trial court will be transmitted electronically to the appellate court. Absent the use of the above procedure, any paper exhibits would have to be digitized by court staff before the record could go up on appeal, which puts a burden on the courthouse workers, especially when there is a large trial record.

It has been noted that the court is also trying to reduce paper storage in the courthouse.

Again, this rule goes into effect on July 1, 2025.

Note also that a similar local rule is already in effect in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas.

Summary Judgment Granted in Monroe County Trip and Fall Case

In the Monroe County decision by Judge David Williamson in the case of Martz v. JKS Mobile Home Park, PICS Case No. 13-0091 (C.P. Monroe Co. Dec. 12, 2012 Williamson, J.), the court entered summary judgment in favor of a Defendant in a trip and fall case.  

 

By way of background, the Plaintiff alleged personal injuries after having tripped and fallen in her own yard on a piece of metal protruding out of the ground.   The Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that the Defendant was liable because it breached its duty to her in failing to keep the rear area of her leased lot free and clear of all dangerous conditions.  

 

The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that there is no question of any material fact as to liability because the Plaintiff had admitted at her deposition that she was in possession of the leased premises at the time of her injury and that the Defendant had no notice of the alleged defective condition.  

 

The Plaintiff attempted to raise genuine issue of material fact as to possession and control of the area in which she fell.  

 

The court granted summary judgment after determining, from a review of the Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony, that she had maintained the area for almost three (3) years and had even placed a fence around it.   Based upon this testimony, the court determined that the area was within her maintenance and control and that the Defendant had no duty to make the area safe.  

 

The court also relied upon the Plaintiff’s deposition with respect to her admission that even she did not know how long the object that caused her to trip and fall was in her backyard.  

 

The Plaintiff had also only witnessed the Defendant’s employees leave logs in or near her yard, which had nothing to do with her fall.  No other involvement by the Defendant with the Plaintiff's yard was indicated.   As such, the court determined that the Plaintiff had failed to show any breach of any duty by the Defendant.  

 

Significantly, the court also rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that a determination on summary judgment could not be made on deposition testimony alone.  The court cited applicable law confirming that, since the Defendant had supported its motion by using the deposition testimony of an opposing party and the admissions contained therein, summary judgment could be granted on that basis under Pennsylvania.  

 

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision may contact the Pennsylvania Law Weekly’s Pennsylvania Instant Case Service at 1-800-276-7427 and providing the above-referenced PICS Case Number and paying a small fee.

 

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions,” Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 30 PLW 103 (Jan. 29, 2013).  

Monroe County Post-Koken Consolidation vs. Severance Issue Uncovered

In an Order handed down back on July 11, 2012 in the case of Cocuzza v. Castro, No. 406-Civil-2012 (C.P. Monroe Co. July 11, 2012 Zulick, J.), Judge Arthur L. Zulick came down on the side of consolidation of claims in terms of post-Koken matters when the Court denied the UIM carrier’s Preliminary Objections.

Judge Arthur L. Zulick
Monroe County

In his Opinion, Judge Zulick confirmed that there was no appellate decision on the issue presented of consolidation versus severance as of that date (and as of this date for that matter). The Court also noted that there was a split of authority and an arguable majority rule in favor of bifurcation at that point in time of July of 2012 when this Cocuzza decision was handed down.

However, Judge Zulick found that allowing the case to proceed through discovery in a consolidated fashion would save judicial resources and avoid unnecessary delay and expenses to the parties. Accordingly, Judge Zulick ruled in favor of consolidation and noted that his “decision is without prejudice to any party bringing an appropriate Motion to Sever or Bifurcate after discovery is complete and the case is ready to proceed to trial.”

This is the only reported decision I have come across to date out of Monroe County. If anyone is in possession of any other cases out of that county, or any other county that has not yet been reported here on Tort Talk, I would appreciate it if you could please let me know and provide me with a copy of the decision.  In this way, we can all work together to stay apprised as to the lastest status of the decisions on these novel Post-Koken issues.

Anyone desiring a copy of this decision of Cocuzza v. Castro may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

A "Transient Rub of Life"

In a recent decision, the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas denied a Plaintiff's motion for a new trial in a case where the jury entered a zero verdict in a clear liability case even thought the defense medical expert agreed that the plaintiff had sustained some form of injury.

In the case of Abuhadba v. Schena, PICS Case No. 10-1948 (C.P. Monroe March 12, 2010 Zulick, J.), Judge Zulick noted that the plaintiff, who claimed chronic injuries to her head, neck and back as the result of a motor vehicle accident, provided inconsistent testimony about her injuries during her time on the witness stand at trial.

Judge Zulick noted that the courts of Pennsylvania courts have addressed the issue of defense experts conceding injuries in admitted liability cases and found that some injuries should be considered a "transient rub of life" for which the jury can award minimal damages or, in the alternative, for which the jury can find that defendent's negligence caused an injury but that the injury was not compensable.

Judge Zulick held that the extent of Abuhabda's injuries was a question of credibility and the jury's verdict was clearly not against the weight of the evidence. Thus, the zero verdict was upheld and the plaintiff's motion for a new trial was denied.



A copy of this case can be secured from the Pennsylvania Law Weekly's Instant Case Service for a small fee by calling 1800-276-7427 and giving the above PICS Case Number.

Source: Pennsylvania Law Weekly Case Digests.

Unofficial 2009 Judicial Primary Election Results

Lackawanna County

After the primary vote on one judicial seat, Margaret Bisignani-Moyle took the Democratic nomination and Frank Castellano took the Republican spot. Both are long-time assistant district attorneys with little civil litigation experience during their careers of fighting crime. President Judge Harhut has not indicated what types of cases the new Lackawanna County Judge will focus on, but it is clear that another civil court judge is needed as the trial date backlog is up to a year to 18 months to get a trial date in this county.

Luzerne County

In Luzerne County 17 candidates were running for two spots. District Magistrate William Amesbury took the top spot on the Democratic side with Tina Polachek-Gartley coming in second. On the Republican side, Richard Hughes took the top spot and the cross-filed William Amesbury came in second. One local news article has indicated that Judge Amesbury's dual nomination effectively matches Attorney Hughes against Attorney Gartley in the November 3 general election.

Monroe County

Dickinson Law School grad, Jennifer Harlacher Sibum, secured both the Democratic and Republican spots in the primary for Monroe County Judge.

Wyoming/Sullivan County

Attorney Russell Shurtlef secured both the Democratic and Republican top spots in the primary for common pleas court judge in Wyoming/Sullivan County, taking over the spot long and held by retiring from the bench Judge Brendan Vanston.